Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Craig234's Achievements



  1. Hello, kfools. I'm writing you as someone who used to post here with a suggestion I've had since then, but which is newly relevant with the new ownership and chance for changes.


    Ban the use of slurs. Hate speech. Don't allow it under nonsensical justifications of 'free speech' or 'no holds barred' or whatever misguided excuse the previous owner used.

    I won't argue this on the benefits, such as not driving away liberals who will see that speech allowed and leave the site.

    I'm arguing for it simply on the rightness of the issue. That it is wrong to allow the harm to people, directly and indirectly, of such slurs, and should not be something a site owner wants for their site.


    Specifically, I'm talking about any language which represents the more bigoted, hostile words for groups, whether spelled 'correctly' or 'alternately' to avoid the rule.


    I think this would be a nice improvement.


    I can't think of any other forum which actually allows the language, which is a badge of shame for the forum.

    1. kfools


      Hi Craig.



    2. Craig234


      Well, what I take from your one word reply is the lack of courtesy to explain your position, and will interpret that accordingly.

      Unless I hear otherwise, I assume you don't mind if the exchange comes up in a discussion, though I have no plans for it.

  2. Remember, impeaching is a political act, and Republicans are utterly corrupt, so no matter how much evidence of crimes Democrats find, it's unlikely Republicans will uphold justice and support impeachment.
  3. There are at least two. One is that studies show that 'illegal immigrants' are a net economic POSITIVE. Between their doing the jobs Americans don't want for low wages, and paying into Social Security where they can never claim the money back, they give more than they get in welfare and expenses. The other is a humanitarian argument. That's before getting into a topic of how many the US has caused the problems causing many to want to flee. It's useful to note that for years, there has been a net NEGATIVE migration - more Mexicans go from the US to Mexico than from Mexico to the US. But for people who do come to the US, the US has caused a lot of problems causing people to flee here, including our spending billions on drugs the cartels get, and things like backing the coup in Honduras that installed a repressive regime. So there's a case for progressives to want to help people in their own countries so they don't have to move here.
  4. Right-wingers can't understand the concept of democracy. All they understand is authoritarianism. Ironically, they're fighting for authoritarianism not for themselves but for others who convince them that they should join their team against the rest of the country.
  5. A confidential memo of trump's notes on his plans for negotiating for anything he wants has been leaked. "1. Refuse to fund the government operating. Demand they give in to get funding. 2. Refuse to pay Democratic members of Congress until they give in to demands. They think the courts will block this - haven't they been paying attention to the judicial nominees? 3. Refuse to pay the troops. Demand Democrats give in to get them paid. 4. Threaten to move all military and other government activity out of Democratic states and districts unless they give in to demands. 5. Threaten war with countries Democrats love - Canada, France, Sweden - unless they give in to demands."
  6. trump and his base want a wall. Democrats and others don't. Here's the deal. We have a system of government (just as we have an election system that wrongly distorts the vote so trump won with three million fewer votes). It has a House, a Senate, a President, and requirements for passing spending. If trump wants his wall, he needs to either win enough elections to get the people needed in all the branches to pass it - just as Democrats had to do to pass things like healthcare for the American people with no Republican votes; or he needs to negotiate with Democrats to get them to agree enough to vote for it. Those are his valid choices. If he doesn't do those, he doesn't get his wall. Those are the rules, how it works. Democrats don't get all kinds of things they want for the same reason. What's NOT legitimate is to refuse to fund the government's operation and use the government as a hostage to demand what he can't get legitimately. Same with the rights of dreamers, wrongly take them away and then offer to temporarily restore them in exchange for his demands. More hostage taking. If he can do that, then every Democratic president should harm Republican innocent people, should shut down the government and take hostages to demand what THEY want. That's the issue. trump is in the wrong here. If he wants a wall - win elections. Just like Democrats have to. If he hurts innocent people as hostages he gets the blame for it. That's what's going to happen eventually - he's going to lose. The only question is how much harm he'll do in the meantime, how much political damage he'll cause Republicans, by his hostage taking. His supporters don't seem to understand this: they don't have the power, the numbers, to get their way. They're going to lose. Now, or even worse later.
  7. Ah, a post of crap. Bludog, unlike you, posts useful things. He's not 'on the sidelines'.
  8. No, he has not caused the swamp to be drained. This is not the first pro-trump thing I've seen you post.
  9. trump is the biggest mess in government. He has't cleaned up anything, only made it a lot worse.
  10. We're getting off topic, but the Holocaust used a similar approach of justifying it with claims that Jews and socialists and other targets were a 'threat' to Germany and they were just defending themselves. That led to 'The night of knives' with Germans attacking Jews and their property and then to the holocaust. As far as 9/11, yes, it's worse than that. Just as trump spitefully does the opposite of Obama, Bush spitefully did the opposite of Clinton warned Bush Al Queda was the #1 threat to watch, and Clinton had been having daily meetings with Richard Clarke about them. So Bush disbanded the Al Queda unit in the CIA, demoted Richard Clarke, ended those meetings and de-emphasized any concern with Al Queda. His administration said the Clinton administration had been hysterical in their obsession about Al Queda. It could have been found and might not have been because of Bush's choice.
  11. Ah, yup - only saw the posts here. I'm surprised.
  12. Let me guess - not one able to answer as usual.
  13. Isn't 'maca root' just an item, not a particular brand, so saying 'eat maca root' is like saying 'eat your veggies' or 'blueberries are good anti-oxidants'? Not something for a brand, not something Merrill profits from?
  14. I think part of the issue is a sense that the Senate won't convict, and that they might not be able to impeach him again and again as new information about his crimes comes out, so they want to wait for the Mueller report and do it once. Of course, a risk they run is a sense of 'wait for the 2020 election, why impeach him for a short reduction in his time in office'.
  • Create New...